So, Metacritic...

Nope, this isn't the definitive break-down, mixing elements of mathematics, and particle physics, of the somewhat controversial score aggregator. That is for another day, and will require perhaps more web-space than this blog can offer. No, what I want to rant about here is something more irrelevant, but still prominent in its ability to annoy me.

So, maybe 2 or 3 months back, Metacritic began taking review scores for games played on iOS, Android and smart-phone/tablet devices and listed the highest scoring games on their site. This is, of course, Metacritic's function, so no complaints there. The problem is that the site doesn't list these games in a category intended for mobile games, but rather, thinks it's acceptable to integrate them onto the same list which 360/PS3/Wii/PC etc, appear on.

Now, to me, a game like Angry Birds isn't something I would ever consider a -- and I'm gonna say it chaps, so be ready -- "proper game". It's akin to something like, I dunno, minesweeper or something; you're playing it to kill a few minutes while you're on the train, or waiting at the doctor's. These aren't games that will engross you like a full PC or console title; they're just daft little games to play when you're bored.

This webpage makes me sad, as I'm sure it does for Team Bondi as well

I'm not saying the quality of games like Angry Birds are bad, or anything like that, and fully accept that reviews should be collected to listed. However, I don't think it's fair to put such games on a list which is populated by games made by large development teams using high-end technology and delivering large and complex gaming experiences. It's actually an insult to see something like Cut the Rope nestled above something like Shogun 2: Total War (not that this is the case, but is an example); if I were the developer of Shogun 2 I'd be mortified.

I've contacted Metacritic about resolving this annoying feature, but it's not likely they will take on-board any feedback from me alone. However, it seems so obviously flawed that I can only hope they have the sense to change it in future, and just make a separate list for iOS/Android games which is obviously best for everyone.

Another problem with this, and maybe a reason why Metacritic seems oblivious, is that many gaming journalists are becoming so casual with regards to gaming, that they themselves believe smart-phone games like Flick Kick Football are no different to playing games on consoles or PC (or even hand-helds like the 3DS or PSP, for that matter). This ties in with my feelings that gaming media is getting worse overall, since a lot of these professional writers are basing their gaming experiences from playing Cut the Rope and then being paid to review games like Frozen Synapse. There's too much wrong there for me to be happy with that, and I have to question the credibility of these journalists.

Nadal having a quick bash on Cut the Rope -- when he retires from being the best in the world at tennis, he can use this experience to land a job at Eurogamer

Of course, it's entirely possible to play and enjoy all types of games, be it on consoles or smart-phones, but when someone is actively getting paid to write about console games it's a little worrying to find out they spend most of their free-time not playing console games, but rather having the odd bash on Tiny Wings while on the train.

Maybe that's where I've been going wrong; I play too many actual games instead of Angry Birds. Maybe if I spent more time playing stuff like that on an i-Pad I might finally get a job at Gamespot. Worth a shot, you think?

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D -- Review (3DS)

There's no doubt about it, really -- Ocarina of Time on the N64 was as close to design perfection as you could get back in 1998. Like most others, I remember being completely astonished at almost all elements of the game, be it the combat, the dungeons, the music, or the fact that this was all in proper 3D for the first time in a Zelda title. The only other comparison for me is Mario 64, and for very similar reasons. It's not hard to see why, then, I consider Nintendo to be the very best at making games in the world.

With Ocarina of Time 3D my main concern was not purely made-up of "will it still hold-up well today?", but something more specific. I wanted to know if entering Hyrule Field -- as I did as a youngster all those years back -- would still bring a genuine smile to my face. Since the original Ocarina of Time I've seen vast expanses of game-world as far as the eye can see, and visuals so good to make me question reality. With that in mind, would the same 1998 music paired with updated textures still hold true?

The music is exactly the same, but the great thing about truly outstanding music is that it doesn't age

It was hard for me to form any big views on Ocarina of Time 3D for a good while, which was odd as I was expecting either an immediate positive or negative reaction as soon as Navi did her little fly-by to Link's tree-hut. It was only after clearing out Dodongo's Cavern and helping those lovable Gorons, however, that I eventually formed an opinion.

I guess the reason it took me so long is because, while Ocarina of Time was cutting-edge at the time, it has since been surpassed in almost every way - not by other games, mind, but by other Zeldas. This would typically be a hard pill to swallow, but it's worth pointing out that the only reason Ocarina of Time has been bettered is because of Nintendo's brilliance, and not necessarily because the technology or design-tools are more advanced today.

As an example, the combat in Ocarina of Time is very basic, but that's only when comparing it to the more sophisticated and complex nature of Twilight Princess. The game areas and dungeons are much smaller in scale, but only after playing Wind Waker. Essentially, without acknowledging later Zelda titles Ocarina of Time 3D is still a superb game. And its age, which hampers a fair amount of games from those days, doesn't hamper it much at all weirdly. In fact, the game seems perfectly suited for a hand-held console; an almost perfect evolution.

The cosmetic surgery obviously helps make it seem like a modern title, though - the updated textures and character models make the game look splendid on the 3DS, as does the 3D effect itself. Sadly, there's a couple of indications of N64 limitation such as ledges being too square, and frame-rate dips occurring when enemies and magical explosions are plentiful. I don't know if Grezzo could have covered these issues better, but considering they're the only two hiccups I can think of (and you soon get use to the blocky edges, trust me) it's not too bad.

The 3D effect is similar to the difference between SD and HD; with it turned on the game looks more crisp and sharp

Since I never replayed Ocarina of Time since 1998 (aside from a brief test-play of Master Quest on the Gamecube) I was lucky in that all these visual updates almost made the game feel fresh to me. Being able to properly relive everything I adored about the original is something you can't put a price on, and for that alone my apprehension of buying a 3DS has lessened.

What I appreciated most back then, and still today, is how well crafted the world and content is. When Link walks the streets of Hyrule Town, I know that all those colourful characters walking about, with the couple permanently dancing, the guy looking from the window, or the large woman obsessing with her dog, all exist exactly as Nintendo want them to. The content is extremely polished, and so the amount of enjoyment I gain is consistently high, since there's no area which hasn't had plenty of meticulous development.

I still managed to get 45 hours out of Ocarina of Time, which is astonishing when I think about it. But the main reason I've always loved Zelda titles is because while I can say I've played other games for longer, it's only a game like Ocarina of Time where I can truly say that those 45 hours -- every single one of them -- were spent having fun. That time spent included anything from listening out for spider legs scratching as I searched for Gold Skulltulas in dungeons, to making sure to deliver items in time from various NPCs to further my goal of obtaining a powerful sword, to even the way in which I way tried eight or nine times before finally taking the fishing guy's hat off and throwing it in the river for him to amusingly yell "50 rupees for that!!!".

The Water Temple benefits from a small update that makes tracking the levels of water easier (this isn't the Water Temple, by the way)

It's not all about running off and terrorising fishermen, though, because it's in the dungeons where things get more focused and the challenge notched up. Again, I was worried these wouldn't hold up too well, but was pleasantly surprised when I genuinely ended up getting stuck a couple of times. In fact, I hate to admit it was the infamous Water Temple that did it, but it was more due to me not using my awareness better, rather than being confused at how the water-levels worked. Of course, the dungeons are a lot smaller than the multi-tiered epics we see in the likes of Twilight Princess, but the shorter length and scope makes it a perfect fit for a hand-held, where perhaps constant playing isn't possible.

Unfortunately, although I managed to get 'stuck' in a good way during a couple of dungeons, outside of them I was welcomed with a flaw that wasn't as-obvious in 1998. Again it was due to having played modern Zeldas that this become apparent, as I did end up feeling that the game lacked focus in giving the player clear goals. This isn't in a "hold my hand all the time and point an arrow to my mission" complaint, as I don't believe in that type of design, but compared to Wind Waker where I know what my main task is, it was odd to be revisiting areas constantly to check if I missed anything relating to the main quest. Back in 1998 we were just happy to have a game on this scale, and so the obtuse nature felt intended, but now it doesn't work so well.

Grezzo clearly saw this as an issue, and so threw in Sheikah Stones to give guidance. They go some way to reducing the issue, and as Adult Link the goals become much more obvious, but for a few occasions I felt like the old design was getting the better of me.

The touch-screen makes inventory management much less intrusive

But it's hard to stay angry at Ocarina of Time for any long period of time, as the charm is too hard to resist. Genuinely laughing at a group of Gorons attempting to hug Link as he screams and runs off just highlights exactly why this game has remained in so many gamer's hearts for so long. The story might seem pretty basic now, but the writing and characters still managed to maintain my attention; the final confrontation with Ganondorf is still just as much of an epic climax as it ever was.

Summary

I think it speaks volumes that I still bothered, or rather, wanted to go through pages of guides to make sure I got every item, and completed every little task Ocarina of Time 3D offers. This game has no right to be so playable after all this time, but I can honestly say that the updated visuals and controls are merely a bonus to a game that is still excellent even today.

The only true reason why it isn't hitting the same highest peak for me as it did in 1998 is purely because Nintendo have taken the formula laid here and made it better with Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. As for other games, well, not much competes, be it in 1998, or now 13 years later.

13 years later, where I can still play a little dude in a green hat, walk into an open field with a ranch ahead of me, a river to the right, and a desert valley to the left, and listening to that iconic track, before realising that, yes indeed, I still have a smile on my face. And bigger than ever.
                                                                                                         9/10